GOP party of fiscal responsibility?

[The Rabbi]

As usual, the dominant "defense" from the right in this thread, as in ANY thread pointing out GOP duplicity, is..."Well...the Democrats do it too!"

Yet, in one of their OMG! OBAMA! threads, it's ONLY the Democrats!

Tsk, tsk. Such blatant dishonesty. No wonder the GOP has just about committed suicide.

Actually this thread, your thread, is an example of blatant dishonesty. It isn't the GOP. It is the GOP of California. Not the same thing. Nor is a debt of 800k anything remotely related to the trillions the Democrats in Congress have spent.

Huh? The GOP is not the GOP? And, their debt doesn't mean anything because it's not enough to count?

Do you have some issue with reading comprehension? Get an adult to explain it to you.

 

[nitroz]

(Reuters) - Congress is getting an earful about the big spending cuts beginning to hit government services from worried and irate constituents, including one senator's own spouse.

 

[Oldguy]

Actually this thread, your thread, is an example of blatant dishonesty. It isn't the GOP. It is the GOP of California. Not the same thing. Nor is a debt of 800k anything remotely related to the trillions the Democrats in Congress have spent.

Huh? The GOP is not the GOP? And, their debt doesn't mean anything because it's not enough to count?

Do you have some issue with reading comprehension? Get an adult to explain it to you.

I understood you just fine. You said the California GOP isn't the GOP. Well then, what is? The Republican National Committee, which consists of a mere 168 people? Maybe it's the collective membership numbers nationally, or maybe it's those who vote Republican but don't belong to the party, right?

The national party IS the sum total of the state organizations and they, in turn, are the sum total of their precinct organizations. To claim that one isn't the other is either the most disingenuous argument I've heard yet, or it shows a shocking lack of knowledge.

And, I understood you just fine on their debt too. Because THEIR debt isn't as much as the Democrats have run up, it's inconsequential, right?

What a load of baloney.

 

[nitroz]

Huh? The GOP is not the GOP? And, their debt doesn't mean anything because it's not enough to count?

Do you have some issue with reading comprehension? Get an adult to explain it to you.

I understood you just fine. You said the California GOP isn't the GOP. Well then, what is? The Republican National Committee, which consists of a mere 168 people? Maybe it's the collective membership numbers nationally, or maybe it's those who vote Republican but don't belong to the party, right?

The national party IS the sum total of the state organizations and they, in turn, are the sum total of their precinct organizations. To claim that one isn't the other is either the most disingenuous argument I've heard yet, or it shows a shocking lack of knowledge.

And, I understood you just fine on their debt too. Because THEIR debt isn't as much as the Democrats have run up, it's inconsequential, right?

What a load of baloney.

The California GOP isn't the GOP because they aren't extremists. Duh.

 

[Oldguy]

Do you have some issue with reading comprehension? Get an adult to explain it to you.

I understood you just fine. You said the California GOP isn't the GOP. Well then, what is? The Republican National Committee, which consists of a mere 168 people? Maybe it's the collective membership numbers nationally, or maybe it's those who vote Republican but don't belong to the party, right?

The national party IS the sum total of the state organizations and they, in turn, are the sum total of their precinct organizations. To claim that one isn't the other is either the most disingenuous argument I've heard yet, or it shows a shocking lack of knowledge.

And, I understood you just fine on their debt too. Because THEIR debt isn't as much as the Democrats have run up, it's inconsequential, right?

What a load of baloney.

The California GOP isn't the GOP because they aren't extremists. Duh.

Extremist or not, they don't seem to do a very good job of managing their money, do they? Yet, they'd like the voters to trust them with the state budget when they can't even manage their own.

 

[nitroz]

I understood you just fine. You said the California GOP isn't the GOP. Well then, what is? The Republican National Committee, which consists of a mere 168 people? Maybe it's the collective membership numbers nationally, or maybe it's those who vote Republican but don't belong to the party, right?

The national party IS the sum total of the state organizations and they, in turn, are the sum total of their precinct organizations. To claim that one isn't the other is either the most disingenuous argument I've heard yet, or it shows a shocking lack of knowledge.

And, I understood you just fine on their debt too. Because THEIR debt isn't as much as the Democrats have run up, it's inconsequential, right?

What a load of baloney.

The California GOP isn't the GOP because they aren't extremists. Duh.

Extremist or not, they don't seem to do a very good job of managing their money, do they? Yet, they'd like the voters to trust them with the state budget when they can't even manage their own.

Nope, they do not.
But that new governor has shown signs of big improvement. Oh, did I mention that he's a liberal who actually understands finances?

Jerry Brown Creates California Surplus Miracle, But Can It Last?

 

[editec]

I think Lyndon Johnson's "Guns and Butter" budget really kicked us into deficiet spending overdrive.

And then they started diluting the currency so badly that the Bretton-Woods Gold standard disintegrated and now 50 years later the world's economic system is so riddled by dubious debt counted in fiat money, we don't know if we're coming or going.

Remember WIN pins? Whip inflation Now?

Our economic system has been broken for half a century, folks.

 

[Oldguy]

The California GOP isn't the GOP because they aren't extremists. Duh.

Extremist or not, they don't seem to do a very good job of managing their money, do they? Yet, they'd like the voters to trust them with the state budget when they can't even manage their own.

Nope, they do not.
But that new governor has shown signs of big improvement. Oh, did I mention that he's a liberal who actually understands finances?

Jerry Brown Creates California Surplus Miracle, But Can It Last?

Which is actually surprising to some of us old enough who remember the "Governor Moonbeam" of old.

 

[DiamondDave]

As usual, the dominant "defense" from the right in this thread, as in ANY thread pointing out GOP duplicity, is..."Well...the Democrats do it too!"

Yet, in one of their OMG! OBAMA! threads, it's ONLY the Democrats!

Tsk, tsk. Such blatant dishonesty. No wonder the GOP has just about committed suicide.

Actually this thread, your thread, is an example of blatant dishonesty. It isn't the GOP. It is the GOP of California. Not the same thing. Nor is a debt of 800k anything remotely related to the trillions the Democrats in Congress have spent.

Huh? The GOP is not the GOP? And, their debt doesn't mean anything because it's not enough to count?

You let us know who came up and created all the hippie entitlements, enviro-nazi laws and legislation, etc in CA where the money is being spent, and get back with us

 

[DiamondDave]

The California GOP isn't the GOP because they aren't extremists. Duh.

Extremist or not, they don't seem to do a very good job of managing their money, do they? Yet, they'd like the voters to trust them with the state budget when they can't even manage their own.

Nope, they do not.
But that new governor has shown signs of big improvement. Oh, did I mention that he's a liberal who actually understands finances?

Jerry Brown Creates California Surplus Miracle, But Can It Last?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/us/millionaires-consider-leaving-california-over-taxes.html?_r=0

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

They can't even manage their own party debt, yet they want us to trust them with the whole nation?

Look which party's presidents have been able to control congress. Reagan, Pap Bush and his filthy degenerate boy, are the biggest peacetime spenders in history. Proportionally, Reagan TRIPLED the debt, but morons continue to bleat about his fiscal prudence.

Take a look at what ReagaNUTs have done to the United States of America and weep. Nothing points out the scale of the failure of public education like nutball denial of fiscal facts relating to which party (Republicans to be clear) has most consistently put the US economy at risk with crazy corporate welfare to defense contractors. Clinton reduced deficit spending - mainly due to the "deflation effect" of opening the borders to cheap foreign labor and cheap foreign goods made by indentured labor, but he was right there with Republiscum on destroying America through corporatism, especially international corporate welfare DIRECTLY PAID FOR BY THE MIDDLE CLASS PRIVATE SECTOR US CITIZEN (see, Marc Rich, commodities speculation, Glass Steagall, more...).

 

[Freewill]

From the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of Jimmy Carter the national debt was paid down in terms of gross domestic product. During Bill Clinton's second term the national debt was paid down in absolute terms.

The national debt only became a problem during the Reagan administration when Reagan said it was possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without cutting popular middle class entitlements.

The Republican Party caused the debt crises with their dogma that it is always a good idea to cut taxes and never a good idea to raise them. Now they are using the debt for which they are responsible in an effort to cut or eliminate popular domestic programs they have never liked, but which are popular with the voters.

Even Bush I called it "voodoo economics."

And it ushered in the greatest peace time expansion of the economy that the US has ever seen. One that Clinton rode to glory. Reagan's policies saved us from the malaise of Jimmy Carter. If you are an honest old guy you remember the lines at the gas station, you remember the inflation, you remember the turmoil all of which ended with Reagan.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

From the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of Jimmy Carter the national debt was paid down in terms of gross domestic product. During Bill Clinton's second term the national debt was paid down in absolute terms.

The national debt only became a problem during the Reagan administration when Reagan said it was possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without cutting popular middle class entitlements.

The Republican Party caused the debt crises with their dogma that it is always a good idea to cut taxes and never a good idea to raise them. Now they are using the debt for which they are responsible in an effort to cut or eliminate popular domestic programs they have never liked, but which are popular with the voters.

I dont recall the US debt being downgraded during Reagan's time. In fact I recall Reagan's time as a period of enormous growth, especially after the miserable Jimmy Carter, second worst president in history.
I also don't recall debt being downgraded under Bush. That seems to have happened when Obama was president and the Democrats ran Congress. Obama has spent more money than every other president.

As far as policy, the GOP has put forth various proposals to cut spending. Where are the Democrat proposals? Oh yeah. They dont have any. Their solution is more tax increases now in exchange for talking about spending cuts in the "out" years. Out years are when Obama will be OUT of office. That isn't governance. That's politics as usual.

That is laugh out loud funny. No question Clinton was a scum for signing NAFTA and deregulating speculation, and no question Obama is a fool for what is basically a "supply side" economic policy pumping money in at the top through government. Honest people with real world understanding of economics can sign off on that.

Still, as bad as those two were and are, Republican presidents are directly responsible for today's economic situation. Most hilariously, every nutball vote for Junebug in 2004 led directly to Obama, so one hopes the filthy god damned anti-American scum who re elected the Bush Boy are enjoying the fruits of their 2004 vote for the least competent president in US history.

But I digress...

Reagan tripled the debt. His bastard disciple, Junebug Bush, doubled it.

The firms that downgraded US debt rated AIG debt AAA hours before the fall.

People who can't internalize these facts can sit over in the differently-abled section along with the others too stupid to understand the facts.

Next.

 

[Darkwind]

From the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of Jimmy Carter the national debt was paid down in terms of gross domestic product. During Bill Clinton's second term the national debt was paid down in absolute terms.

The national debt only became a problem during the Reagan administration when Reagan said it was possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without cutting popular middle class entitlements.

The Republican Party caused the debt crises with their dogma that it is always a good idea to cut taxes and never a good idea to raise them. Now they are using the debt for which they are responsible in an effort to cut or eliminate popular domestic programs they have never liked, but which are popular with the voters.

This is, of course, what passes for liberal fantasy land. It is also why our children don't know anything about this country. Rewriting history is a favored pastime of the wannabe dictators and tyrants of the world.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

From the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of Jimmy Carter the national debt was paid down in terms of gross domestic product. During Bill Clinton's second term the national debt was paid down in absolute terms.

The national debt only became a problem during the Reagan administration when Reagan said it was possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without cutting popular middle class entitlements.

The Republican Party caused the debt crises with their dogma that it is always a good idea to cut taxes and never a good idea to raise them. Now they are using the debt for which they are responsible in an effort to cut or eliminate popular domestic programs they have never liked, but which are popular with the voters.

Even Bush I called it "voodoo economics."

And it ushered in the greatest peace time expansion of the economy that the US has ever seen. One that Clinton rode to glory. Reagan's policies saved us from the malaise of Jimmy Carter. If you are an honest old guy you remember the lines at the gas station, you remember the inflation, you remember the turmoil all of which ended with Reagan.

Do you understand that borrowing boatloads of money and spending it like a drunken sailor is not really prosperity? Do you understand that a rising tide lifts all boats, and that over 90% of earned income increases went to the top 20% of US wage earners? Do you understand that is the model that keeps Latin America in the global shitter?

Is your understanding of basic math adequate to the task of figuring out that 75% of the "greatest peacetime expansion of the economy" was paid for with a credit card? Take the drop in value of assets after June 2007 through the winter of 2008/2009 and it could be that 90% of the Clinton economy was "bubble".

Clinton was an economic disciple of Reagan. He signed bills opening US borders at the expense of private sector middle class Americans, he deregulated speculation in commodities, and he stripped consumers of protections against bad acts by banks. Reagan could only dream of the degenerate anti-American corporatism Clinton signed.

Junebug Bush was the neocon heir to the bobbleheaded old simpleton, Reagan. Reagan pioneered bailouts to banks and Wall Street; the Bush boy took them new nadirs of anti-Americanism.

It shouldn't tickle me as much as it does to see halfwit American hanging on to their fantasies about a corporate-owned political hack like Reagan, and it shouldn't amuse me as much as it does to see human potential enthusiasts cling to their delusions about a lowlife scum like Clinton.

Still, what is life without a smile from time to time?

 

[realinvestment]

GOP protected multinational corporations in the fiscal cliff negotiations. Many of them pay no US income tax, yet they were left untouched in the deal.

 

[editec]

GOP party of fiscal responsibility?

Nope.

Never has been never will be.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Let's face it, the GOP is led by anti-American corporatists who since 1976 can be counted on to trot out one of two types of candidate: bobble headed fools like Reagan and Junebug Bush, or craven insiders like Pap Bush, Bob Dole and most brazenly of all, the stockholder rapist Willard Romney.

Watching Willard walk tickled me. He walks from the waist down like an earnest school boy; in Will's case it pleased me to believe that is how he walked on his way to meet Mormon elders for advanced lessons in personal hygiene.

But there was nothing funny about the way Willard took to Don Regan/William Simon/George Schultz/Cap Weinberger/Wall Street connivances. What became LBOs were originally the preferred method by which children bought businesses from family and then operated them, etc. Willard and other ReagaNUTs figured out how to rape stockholders of public companies by loading public companies with debt for "consulting fees" then taking loan proceeds as "dividends" and hooking it out of town.

Any party degenerate enough to put someone like that out front is anti-American in every core value known to Americans. What is hilarious is how corporations put a bobble headed idiot out front, surrounded him with religious nuts and defense contractors, and then sold him to moderate Democrats and Republicans as America's savior. I am laughing out loud thinking about Reagan, basically a New Dealer among reactionary greedmongers, may well turn out to have been the leading edge of the pharisee class who take the US down for the count.

There is a saying, "When fascism comes to America it will arrive wrapped in the flag and bearing a cross."

Look at the filthy god damned scum claiming to be Republican leaders: Religious nuts and defense industry shills, every one of them. Now look at the human cattle who buy all that bullshit and one understands the purpose carnivals used to serve before media at the speed of light rendered fleshpot carnivals irrelevant. The new carnival is politics at the speed of light paid for on credit.

It really is laugh out loud funny.

 

[The Rabbi]

From the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of Jimmy Carter the national debt was paid down in terms of gross domestic product. During Bill Clinton's second term the national debt was paid down in absolute terms.

The national debt only became a problem during the Reagan administration when Reagan said it was possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without cutting popular middle class entitlements.

The Republican Party caused the debt crises with their dogma that it is always a good idea to cut taxes and never a good idea to raise them. Now they are using the debt for which they are responsible in an effort to cut or eliminate popular domestic programs they have never liked, but which are popular with the voters.

I dont recall the US debt being downgraded during Reagan's time. In fact I recall Reagan's time as a period of enormous growth, especially after the miserable Jimmy Carter, second worst president in history.
I also don't recall debt being downgraded under Bush. That seems to have happened when Obama was president and the Democrats ran Congress. Obama has spent more money than every other president.

As far as policy, the GOP has put forth various proposals to cut spending. Where are the Democrat proposals? Oh yeah. They dont have any. Their solution is more tax increases now in exchange for talking about spending cuts in the "out" years. Out years are when Obama will be OUT of office. That isn't governance. That's politics as usual.

That is laugh out loud funny. No question Clinton was a scum for signing NAFTA and deregulating speculation, and no question Obama is a fool for what is basically a "supply side" economic policy pumping money in at the top through government. Honest people with real world understanding of economics can sign off on that.

Still, as bad as those two were and are, Republican presidents are directly responsible for today's economic situation. Most hilariously, every nutball vote for Junebug in 2004 led directly to Obama, so one hopes the filthy god damned anti-American scum who re elected the Bush Boy are enjoying the fruits of their vote for the least competent president in US history.

But I digress...

Reagan tripled the debt. His bastard disciple, Junebug Bush, doubled it.

The firms that downgraded US debt rated AIG debt AAA hours before the fall.

People who can't internalize these facts can sit over in the differently-abled section along with the others too stupid to understand the facts.

Next.

If ignorance were wealth you'd be buying and selling Bill Gates.

 

[Erand7899]

Republicans will say that even if you took all the money from the top 1% and put it towards the debt or towards running the country, it would only last a short time.

THEN

Turn around and insist "Twinkle Down" is a viable economic policy.

If ALL their money does no good, they how does the the tiny bit they poop out help?

It's because the GOP base thinks in very simplistic terms. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan don't believe in "Twinkle Down". Their policies are designed to screw the middle class and poor. Because they are greedy bastards paid by big corporations and billionaires to work to redistribute the wealth of the nation to the top 1%. They could care less about "rebuilding America". It's about the money NOW. What they can get NOW. During the month of the election, Mitt Romney was moving one of his companies from Freeport, Illinois to China. And he expected to win while squatting on Americans at the same time of the election.

Sensata employees in Freeport reach out to Mitt Romney for help in saving their jobs | The Rock River Times

Your post is a prime example of simplistic thinking combined with low information. No one, with any common sense, could possibly believe that you even know what "trickle down" economics means.